Pfizer to Relocate New London Headquarters

In 2005, New London came into the national spotlight when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city in the most controversial eminent domain cases in the history of the Court, Kelo v. New London. The legal battle began in 2000 when Susette Kelo and several of her neighbors sued the city in order to prevent their houses being taken by eminent domain.

The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a nonprofit development council funded by the state, planned on using the homeowners’ land to develop an enormous research and development facility for the multinational pharmaceutical company Pfizer, as well as a conference center and hotel, restaurants and a marina walkway – all in the name of economic development for the city of New London.

After being part of the city for almost a decade, Pfizer Inc. decided last month that it would close its branch in New London. Only four years after the resolution of the case that brought them to the city, the company’s departure is another blow to New London’s economy as well as its morale.

Pfizer’s entrance into New London came under disputed circumstances. It was facilitated in part by Connecticut College’s former president Claire Gaudiani, who also served as president of the New London Development Corporation. She was looking for a Fortune 500-type company to build on the undeveloped property in the Fort Trumbull area in New London.

Through encouragement from an aide of the governor of Connecticut, she convinced Pfizer to expand from their Groton facility into neighboring New London, despite the fact that the New London property was smaller than others they were considering, adjacent to a junkyard as well as to neighboring homes.

However, with the prospect that the project could revitalize the New London economy, one that had been classified as a “distressed community,” by the State of Connecticut in 1990, Pfizer chose the city with encouragement from the NLDC as well as the governor of Connecticut.

The Pfizer facility cost $300 million to build, which included “three towers, a helipad, a cafeteria with water views, on-site parking for 1,800 cars, a fitness center and a credit union.”

The State of Connecticut also contributed $100 million to the redevelopment project.

This facility now sits empty as many local officials as well as residents wonder if it will ever be occupied again, especially in today’s sour economy. While most of the jobs will be transferred to Pfizer’s research center in Groton, the closing of the New London facility represents an enormous financial loss for the town.

Many who worked in servicing the building and on its campus are worried that their duties will not similarly be transferred over to the Groton facility.

Also, Pfizer’s involvement in the redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull waterfront area was what spearheaded confidence and gained funding for the project, as well as for the city of New London.

When this project was announced in 1998, it was the brainchild of Gaudiani. It was under her advisement that Pfizer came to New London to function as the catalyst for the growth and development for the rest of the city. It was her idea to turn New London into “a world-class, hip little city” complete with a world-class research center for a Fortune 500 company, a conference center, a hotel, condos and expensive restaurants.

This redevelopment would have changed the blueprint of the city.

No longer would New London be known as a city on the Long Island Sound or the home to the Coast Guard Academy and Connecticut College, it would become a major destination along the East Coast for business travelers as well as tourists.

But as with many cities across the United States, there is already a housing surplus in New London. High-priced condominiums like the Harbour Towers on Bank Street are not what the public is eager to buy or can even afford.

What seems to be the most fitting use for the area is what was already demolished – a middle class neighborhood made up of houses that are affordable and that take advantage of attractive views of Thames River and Long Island Sound.

Many in the New London community have been jumping to say, “I told you so” since the lots cleared after Kelo have yet to be developed. Their cries are only louder now, as the driving force behind all of this economic development is now abandoning the city. One man who was not pleased to hear of Pfizer’s decision was Jeff Benedict, the author of Little Pink House, which documents Susette Kelo’s rise to the national stage after she refused to give up her home.

Commenting on Pfizer’s departure to the Hartford Courant, Benedict said, “So much of this story dopes down to folly born of hubris. But justice has come to New London. The city that showed no mercy to its little people has gotten a taste of its own medicine.”

Hubris was the cause of many of the problems within New London, according to Benedict. When asked in a separate interview if Little Pink House was a story of good versus evil as in the innocent homeowner versus the greedy NLDC and college president, Benedict replied, “There is no evil in Little Pink House, only pride. There’s a real difference. We’re all vulnerable to pride.”

Professor Fred Paxton of the history department was part of the Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull, which was composed of some who lived in the neighborhood as well as other concerned citizens from the area.

“New London would surely have gained from the success of the Municipal Development Plan that was created to complement Pfizer’s Global Research and Development Center, but that success was never assured, and those of us trying to save the Fort Trumbull neighborhood based our position in part on the probability that it would not succeed.”

While no citizen of New London could deny that the city was in need of more money and more jobs, many saw from the beginning that this was not the right plan for the city.

One question still remains: is New London better or worse off from Pfizer’s presence in the city and the subsequent case that stemmed from their arrival?

Susette Kelo and her neighbors might argue that the city is much worse off, as it chose urban development projects over its residents, one of whom had lived in the same house her entire life and another of whom spent much of his adult life fixing up properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in order to make them livable again. Others might argue that the involvement of Pfizer in New London brought the city to the national stage, and now other companies will see New London as a great place to open a branch.

Professor Paxton said that the situation has become “an almost unmitigated disaster.” While many urban developers and city planners have been crediting every failure in the past few years to the economic downturn, this project was doomed long before Lehman Brothers fell. As somewhat of a forgotten city, New London has been pulling itself up from its bootstraps after its public relations crisis back into a more favorable light.

New London is certainly not without hope. If you search “New London” on the The New York Times website, you’ll see one article about Pfizer’s departure from the city, but another describing New London’s burgeoning art scene.

Without the help of developers or expensive state contracts, New London appears to be becoming a place to visit all on its own.

Professor Paxton said, “the kind of ground-up, community-based development that we favored all along has been moving New London towards a more sustainable future as a center for art, music, culture, history, recreation and education.”